IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Call for adoption of draft-gallagher-openpgp-replacementkey

Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> Sun, 07 April 2024 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <simon@josefsson.org>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F331FC14F602; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=josefsson.org header.b="FWa7a6uT"; dkim=pass (2736-bit key) header.d=josefsson.org header.b="WU5gG2WA"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wtdk5J2w4kDf; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uggla.sjd.se (uggla.sjd.se [IPv6:2001:9b1:8633::107]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52125C14F5F1; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=josefsson.org; s=ed2303; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To :Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=JiEK3Amr6moAguvn41T0/TiM401+sWoImGyOmvj+iFc=; t=1712510519; x=1713720119; b=FWa7a6uTa6A8dD69C6qolVGPRrYRfHeyfpD2WZsUQ7HC5A+IPxpPVgZPuqKyLewNT1NmpMuF7Rz WyYqR/9k2AA==;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=josefsson.org; s=rsa2303; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=JiEK3Amr6moAguvn41T0/TiM401+sWoImGyOmvj+iFc=; t=1712510519; x=1713720119; b=WU5gG2WAHYPtp1Coc+Vhskew7F3gtxxAQkN1pZiEvb+rrLMmmD/UEzONWs4P2WXJCcc9n0vspGu nplTWjPEA44uxsjTFw3kB9PYkhu7yPI770ZIbnV9aSCawminWkz8Pt7p5iXoBGbaJjBoq0lbIdVq7 YThWUuhXrjoOpxL8Yd7EnFm0kVlD19o1M9f7TfmyM7KMyCjFZ7Zc/d+Pim70c+elEAfEX4eCprAwZ QHCC/wfy1NF51gB3ECWZKVPH902Ra2o2rkjHgRM2k+/Gv+Zoy+I0OLPUU5pssTYcmnogsf0EMNIWv 5B3PbeLP0RPMz7AVKbMC36Lp248HVRfkW3ZPBY0gLIiOrFyG4zVDQlX3dOS+iHVpWTeS4J7dXNKwW fq7UF943uAlbQEn2wLV+PL9ERLCGBFSHMbgSx6Fo/FH6Ipur5qvYOYEc6tSPac7GLYwO6Ev9s;
Received: from [2001:9b1:41ac:ff00:823f:5dff:fe09:16ac] (port=59022 helo=kaka) by uggla.sjd.se with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <simon@josefsson.org>) id 1rtWDN-00AwCY-B4; Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:21:57 +0000
From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg=40andrewg.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
References: <87ttkdr5e0.fsf@kaka.sjd.se> <F0D472E0-0B37-416A-9587-F64FF646B0E1@andrewg.com> <87plv1r2sf.fsf@kaka.sjd.se> <00519434-0b3a-4046-a46e-778558468fae@cs.tcd.ie>
OpenPGP: id=B1D2BD1375BECB784CF4F8C4D73CF638C53C06BE; url=https://josefsson.org/key-20190320.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:23:240407:openpgp@ietf.org::PcS3lBEo75ZV+Co6:00J2
X-Hashcash: 1:23:240407:dkg@fifthhorseman.net::u2YeQFBaVflKA4JR:7IEe
X-Hashcash: 1:23:240407:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie::uHQnUog5aRlw0Re6:7yw7
X-Hashcash: 1:23:240407:simon=40josefsson.org@dmarc.ietf.org::3iytkNTlqdfnX414:0AJKu
X-Hashcash: 1:23:240407:andrewg=40andrewg.com@dmarc.ietf.org::pqKn8xo0fspztl8T:0ZTyQ
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 19:21:13 +0200
In-Reply-To: <00519434-0b3a-4046-a46e-778558468fae@cs.tcd.ie> (Stephen Farrell's message of "Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:46:37 +0100")
Message-ID: <87il0tqeba.fsf@kaka.sjd.se>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/8SYl4SOFgCsmO6-fZFMqUwXJpUM>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Call for adoption of draft-gallagher-openpgp-replacementkey
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:22:20 -0000

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> writes:

> Hi Simon,
>
> On 07/04/2024 09:32, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> If automatic processing is one intended purpose use of the
>> specification, some discussion of how that is intended to happen is
>> needed.
>
> Just asking for a clarification: is your position that these
> issues need to be fixed but that that can be done after the
> draft is adopted, or, that these issues need to be fixed before
> you'd support adoption?

Hi.  My take is that it is hard to evaluate if it is a good idea to
adopt the document if there is no agreement on the problem we believe
the document should solve.  Consistent with the suggestions below, my
position is "more discussion".  Extending the adoption call until that
has terminated would be one idea.

https://www.ietf.org/how/wgs//#documents
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7221.html#section-2.2

"Working Group documents are Internet-Drafts that the Working Group has
decided to adopt as official working documents, following a formal call
for adoption by the chairs. This call for adoption will generally only
come after extensive review and discussion. Sometimes a Working Group
will consider several alternatives before selecting a particular
Internet-Draft as a Working Group document. A Working Group will often
take ideas from several of these alternatives to create a single Working
Group document."

/Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email